Member

Enough with this shit. Just because it's newer doesn't mean it's better. It is mobile tech after all. I'm asking. Hence the question marks. Switch isn't running a Tegra X1 at 1:1 clock speeds and it doesn't utilize all cores last I heard. If it was it's another story, but this isn't the case. That leaves the question of how much power is actually available. Sure it can run on it. Just trying to speculate on how many things that have to be scaled down from existing versions and what resolution you could expect.

No you're not asking, The only question mark you used was in a rethorical question where you told the other person how the Tegra in the Switch isn't running at full speed. The Switch isn't weaker than the 360. Stop.

Now that the Switch is getting stuff like LA Noire, Fifa or Doom/Wolfenstein 2 the "but third parties"- crowd has to resort to analog triggers and made up BS like what you're describing. It's getting pathetic.

Banned

Now that the Switch is getting stuff like LA Noire, Fifa or Doom/Wolfenstein 2 the "but third parties"-crowd has to resort to analog triggers and made up BS like what you're describing. It's getting pathetic.

Member

Sounds like a good port, I'm not big on story/cutscene heavy games but I might give it a try with my wife since she loves detective shows.

Anyway, regarding CPU comparisons, IIRC the Cell CPU in the PS3 actually does have a decent amount more raw power than even the Jaguars in the PS4 and XB1, but for whatever reason is highly inefficient and hard to optimize for. I don't remember what was in the 360, but the fact that the Switch CPU is even newer than the Jaguars should tell you that, regardless of raw grunt, the efficiency gains put it comfortably ahead of last gen.

Banned

Isn't comparing speeds and flops from older chips irrelevant, due to those specs being theoretical? Like, on paper, they look much more powerful than they actually are, and because of terrible efficiency, the on-paper specs are nowhere near reflective of real world performance?

Banned

I don't know if I'll pick that game up. It doesn't sound like a type of game I would like to play. On the other hand, I'd kill for a GTAV Switch port, and we all know R* will interpret the lovv sales of that game as an indicator, that Switch owners aren't interested in their games at all. Why is Rockstar doing that to us?

Member

Sounds like best way to play it, too bad the game has less gameplay than most Taletell games. The shooting and driving is almost pointless in the game, some cases are kind of interesting, the whole telling if the person lying was mostly hype, didnt work so well even though the game deserves credit for trying.

Member

Isn't comparing speeds and flops from older chips irrelevant, due to those specs being theoretical? Like, on paper, they look much more powerful than they actually are, and because of terrible efficiency, the on-paper specs are nowhere near reflective of real world performance?

I agree with it being meh, but I don't think it's as much "testing ground" as it is a remaster they were already working on, so they figured why not include the Switch. It's the game the team was already working on. Contrast this with Doom, which is by comparison a late port not coming out on anything else at this time.

They've gotta make their money back on this somehow. On that note, anybody else find it kinda shitty when they do rereleases like this knowing that all the actors involved see no additional pay? (I'm assuming this based on knowing people who were in GTA V)

Member

It mentions Jaguars which are used in PS4/X1. If the Switch compares favorably to the CPU in current gen machines, it stands to reason that A.) it would also beat PS360 CPU's and B.) it would be able to run GTAV since it's on both systems.

The bottom line is the CPU in the Switch is NOT an issue for any game that was on PS360.

Edit: Glad to see this gets a resolution bump. When there was no mention of improved graphics I mentioned it should at least get a resolution bump, but with some devs deciding to keep the resolution the same between docked/undocked it's nice to get confirmation. Will be picking this up and giving it a try at some point.

Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.

Sounds like a good port, I'm not big on story/cutscene heavy games but I might give it a try with my wife since she loves detective shows.

Anyway, regarding CPU comparisons, IIRC the Cell CPU in the PS3 actually does have a decent amount more raw power than even the Jaguars in the PS4 and XB1, but for whatever reason is highly inefficient and hard to optimize for. I don't remember what was in the 360, but the fact that the Switch CPU is even newer than the Jaguars should tell you that, regardless of raw grunt, the efficiency gains put it comfortably ahead of last gen.

The CPU in 360 is called Xenon and it's virtually identical to 3x ps3 PPE (PPE is Cell sans the SPEs). Both Xenon and Cell had considerable FLOPS power (Cell in particular, thanks to the SPEs), but both had major general-purpose issues. Anyhow, if that will help get this thread back on track, here's a direct comparison between ps3 PPE (remember, identical to Xenon), and Cortex A57:

For an apples-to-apples re the individual cores performance, one should take the 2-thread results for PPE and compare those to the 1-thread result for A57; result for latter should also be halved for clock (2GHz in Opteron vs 1GHz in switch).

Enough from me, I'll let you do your own computations. Now, back on topic.

Banned

It mentions Jaguars which are used in PS4/X1. If the Switch compares favorably to the CPU in current gen machines, it stands to reason that A.) it would also beat PS360 CPU's and B.) it would be able to run GTAV since it's on both systems.

The bottom line is the CPU in the Switch is NOT an issue for any game that was on PS360.

Who knows, the truth might surprise us. I just come from reading an amazon product page for a microphone with a customer question asking if this microphone can be used to listen to music. Anything is possible.

Member

The CPU in 360 is called Xenon and it's virtually identical to 3x ps3 PPE (PPE is Cell sans the SPEs). Both Xenon and Cell had considerable FLOPS power (Cell in particular, thanks to the SPEs), but both had major general-purpose issues. Anyhow, if that will help get this thread back on track, here's a direct comparison between ps3 PPE (remember, identical to Xenon), and Cortex A57:

For an apples-to-apples re the individual cores performance, one should take the 2-thread results for PPE and compare those to the 1-thread result for A57; result for latter should also be halved for clock (2GHz in Opteron vs 1GHz in switch).

Enough from me, I'll let you do your own computations. Now, back on topic.

Banned

Who knows, the truth might surprise us. I just come from reading an amazon product page for a microphone with a customer question asking if this microphone can be used to listen to music. Anything is possible.